2001 Pa. Super. 219 - Commonwealth v. MacKert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A trial court’s application of a statute is a question of law, and our standard is plenary. Furthermore, as this matter involves only a question of law,-our standard of review is limited to a determination of whether the trial court committed an error of law. It is black letter law that a statute cannot be applied retroactively absent the legislature’s clear intent that retroactivity is appropriate.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Pa. Super. 257 - Commonwealth v. Richardson · 2005 Pa. Super. 52 - Commonwealth v. Estman

2. “The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner and drawing all proper inferences favorable to the Commonwealth, the fact-finder could reasonably have determined all elements of the crime to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 367 - Commonwealth v. Wallace

3. “§ 4304 Endangering welfare of children (a) Offense defined.— A parent, guardian, or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection or support.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 367 - Commonwealth v. Wallace